Commission for the Conservation and ... - Site de la pêche

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Director clarified that the work pertains to vessels under ―charter, lease or other arrangements‖. This work was further discussed under Agenda Item 9.1. 63. Also with regard to para. 321, one CCM stated that catch in zones should be attributed to the charter State, whereas catch on the high seas should be attributed to the flag State rather than the charter State. 64. Again with regard to para. 321, FFA members stated that catches should be attributed to the chartering country, including in high seas waters. FFA members also underscored the importance of ensuring that all CCMs abide by the mandatory rules of data provision as agreed on by the Commission, noting that deferments based on domestic legal constraints cannot be invoked indefinitely. In the case that such deferments continue, a comprehensive update on means and timeframes for overcoming the constraints should be requested by the Commission. 65. The Commission noted that there was some misunderstanding among CCMs at SC5 in relation to the SC‘s ability to provide advice to, make requests of, and seek expert advice from the NC, the ISC and the TCC. The Commission noted its common understanding on this issue, as contained in Article 11(5) of the Convention, which states that: ―In the exercise of their functions, each Committee may, where appropriate, consult any other fisheries management, technical or scientific organization with competence in the subject matter of such consultation and may seek expert advice as required on an ad hoc basis.‖ 4.2 Independent Review of Interim Arrangements for Science Structure and Function 66. Three recommendations from the SC5 Summary Report were presented by the SC Chair and agreed by WCPFC6 on the following topics: a. Obtaining ISC data (refer to para. 336 of the SC5 Summary Report); b. Peer review of stock assessment (para. 399); c. Future operations of the SC (paras. 404 and 407); 67. With regard to peer review of stock assessments, WCPFC6 agreed that the bigeye stock assessment should be the target of the peer review exercise. In order to achieve the maximum benefit from such a peer review, it was agreed that the peer review should be timed so as to ensure that the latest, full bigeye stock assessment for the WCPO (i.e. the 2010 WCPO bigeye assessment) is reviewed. It was noted that IATTC was also planning a peer review of a planned 2010 assessment for bigeye in the EPO and that the outcome of that review could usefully inform the bigeye assessment in the WCPO. The results of the peer review for the WCPO bigeye assessment should be reported to the WCPFC no later than WCPFC8 (December 2011). 4.3 Reference Points 68. The recommendation from the SC5 Summary Report concerning reference points (para. 277) was discussed. 69. Several FFA members spoke in support of the capacity building elements of the reference point work plan, in particular the workshop and ensuring that future work take full account of the multi-species nature of the fishery. However, some of these CCMs noted that capacity building needs may be broader than simply the topic of reference points (e.g. management procedures for multi-species fisheries, socioeconomic factors, harmonizing in zone and high seas management, etc.). 12
70. A number of CCMs voiced their concerns about endorsing proposals for technical work without full consideration of whether there will be adequate funding available as determined by the outcomes of the FAC meeting. Other CCMs expressed concerns about personnel workloads and intersessional meeting schedules. 71. Three CCMs noted that the work on reference points would facilitate informed decisionmaking on a revised CMM for bigeye, if necessary, at WCPFC7. 72. WCPFC6 endorsed both the short- and medium-term work plans on reference points recommended by SC5, with the proviso that adequate funding support will be secured. 4.4 Programme of work for the Scientific Committee in 2010 73. The SC Chair noted that the proposed budget for the science programme of work for 2010 was increased by US$ 150,000 over the 2009 budget. The indicative budget for 2010 was US$ 700,000. Funding support for science services contracted from SPC-OFP and independent projects carried over from previous years (US$ 216,500) resulted in a small unallocated amount of US$ 12,050 to support other activities. The total science budget proposed by SC5 for 2010 was US$ 928,550. 74. Projects within the SC‘s work programme are either already funded by the Commission or another party; require external funding or support from individual CCMs or groups of CCMs; or are requesting Commission funding under the budget to be agreed at WCPFC6. The following projects, which are recommended for the consideration of the Commission by SC5, include: a. Project 14. (Priority = High) Indonesia and Philippines Data Collection Project (IPDCP) – now WPEA OFM Project: US$ 75,000; b. Project 35. (Priority = High) Refinement of bigeye parameters Pacific-wide: a comprehensive review and study of bigeye tuna reproductive biology: US$ 30,000; c. Project 39. (Priority = High) Regional study of the stock structure and life-history characteristics of South Pacific albacore: US$ 25,000; d. Project 42. (Priority = High) Pacific-wide tagging project: US$ 10,000; e. Project 56. (Priority = Medium) Use of underwater videos and other tools to characterize species, size composition and spatial distribution of tunas aggregating around floating objects: US$ 2,000; f. Project 57. (Priority = High) Identifying Provisional Limit Reference Points for the key target species in the WCPFC: US$ 20,000; and g. Project 60. (Priority = High) Collection and evaluation of purse-seine species composition data: US$ 54,500. 75. Some CCMs requested detailed budget breakdowns in order to justify the costs and determine whether any cost savings could be achieved. 76. These and other queries caused some CCMs to question the process by which i) the SC prioritizes projects, ii) the Commission approves the projects, and iii) the FAC allocates funding for these projects. These CCMs were concerned that prioritization of projects is not the responsibility of the FAC, yet there was no clear process by which limited funding is allocated among competing priority projects. This is particularly of concern when the budget is not sufficient to support all projects recommended as high priority by the Commissions‘ subsidiary bodies. 13
Page 1 and 2: Commission for the Conservation and
Page 3 and 4: TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY REPORT...
Page 7 and 8: 2.1 Status of the Convention AGENDA
Page 9 and 10: Indonesia 29. WCPFC6 noted both the
Page 11 and 12: Vietnam 40. Vietnam made a statemen
Page 13 and 14: (10%), and the remainder (10%) take
Page 15: v. Given the conclusions of the Jul
Page 19 and 20: 85. Four CCMs, two of whom are also
Page 21 and 22: 103. Other items for which work is
Page 23 and 24: 113. Various options for managing R
Page 25 and 26: d. WCPFC IUU Vessel List 138. WCPFC
Page 27 and 28: 162. New Zealand summarized its cas
Page 29 and 30: 185. The WCPFC Chair expressed his
Page 31 and 32: for the Secretariat to require data
Page 33 and 34: 223. Additional requests were made
Page 35 and 36: Islands noted that Article 8 (4) of
Page 37 and 38: 259. Japan informed WCPFC6 that it
Page 39 and 40: 283. Chinese Taipei requested that
Page 41 and 42: 305. Some CCMs noted their general
Page 43 and 44: 325. While welcoming a CMM for Paci
Page 45 and 46: 348. Some CCMs stated that they sup
Page 47 and 48: funds; these funds can be shown in
Page 49 and 50: 389. WCPFC6 agreed to further consi
Page 51 and 52: 397. The WCPFC Chair agreed that th
Page 55 and 56: Attachment A Commission for the Con
Page 57 and 58: It is my wish that these days of wo
Page 59 and 60: measures making the fight against i
Page 61 and 62: CANADA Sylvie Lapointe Director, St
Page 63 and 64: Juan Pedro Monteagudo Gonzalez Scie
Page 65 and 66: Marie Sophie Dufau Richet Official-
Page 67 and 68:
Takashi Furukatsu TAIYO A&F Co., Lt
Page 69 and 70:
Seong-kwae Park Professor Pukyong N
Page 71 and 72:
Martin de Beer Pacific Tuna Manager
Page 73 and 74:
Agusto Natividad Engineer/Co-Chairm
Page 75 and 76:
Joseph, Chia-Chi Fu Secretary Overs
Page 77 and 78:
Thomas Graham Fishery Policy Analys
Page 79 and 80:
Manny Duenas P.O Box 24023 GMF, Gua
Page 81 and 82:
Bruno Peaucellier Head of Internati
Page 83 and 84:
Jean-François Virmaux Fish Trader
Page 85 and 86:
Lu Minh Tuan Deputy Director, Legis
Page 87 and 88:
PACIFIC ISLANDS FORUM SECRETARIAT F
Page 89 and 90:
Attachment D Commission for the Con
Page 91 and 92:
Until now, the Commission has gener
Page 93 and 94:
As a result of Drew‘s departure w
Page 95 and 96:
This type of systematic, cynical an
Page 97 and 98:
Thirdly, I would like to express ou
Page 99 and 100:
7. For these reasons, the PNA has c
Page 101 and 102:
Attachment H Commission for the Con
Page 103 and 104:
Attachment I Commission for the Con
Page 105 and 106:
Attachment J Commission for the Con
Page 107 and 108:
We also acknowledge invaluable cont
Page 109 and 110:
Tokelau‘s EEZ is a major part of
Page 111 and 112:
measures that the Commission will c
Page 113 and 114:
Attachment N Commission for the Con
Page 115 and 116:
Attachment O Commission for the Con
Page 117 and 118:
REAFFIRMING that the Commission sha
Page 119 and 120:
12. Without prejudice to the sovere
Page 121 and 122:
Para 4.8 Manual Reports The manual
Page 123 and 124:
Report on CCM steps to implement co
Page 125 and 126:
CMM 2007-01: Conservation and Manag
Page 127 and 128:
Report on CCM measures adopted for
Page 129 and 130:
Attachment S Commission for the Con
Page 131 and 132:
Attachment T Commission for the Con
Page 133 and 134:
129
Page 135 and 136:
131
Page 137 and 138:
Attachment V Commission for the Con
Page 139 and 140:
Section IV: Provisions for Access a
Page 141 and 142:
longer take place or if the notifie
Page 143 and 144:
32. Members of the Commission shall
Page 145 and 146:
48. These Rules and Procedures do n
Page 147 and 148:
(f) ensure that no authorization to
Page 149 and 150:
whether each vessel fished for high
Page 151 and 152:
included on the Register. This List
Page 153 and 154:
41. Notwithstanding this expectatio
Page 155 and 156:
longline vessels would not reach th
Page 157 and 158:
1. The objectives of this Measure a
Page 159 and 160:
Attachment Z Commission for the Con
Page 161 and 162:
c. any other vessels fishing within
Page 163 and 164:
ANNEX 2 REPORTING FORMAT FOR THE CA
Page 165 and 166:
Attachment BB Commission for the Co
Page 167 and 168:
11. Nothing in this measure shall p
Page 169 and 170:
Adopts the following conservation a
Page 171 and 172:
Recalling further that Article 29(5
Page 173 and 174:
c. vessel position data; and d. the
Page 175 and 176:
29. CCMs shall only authorize those
Page 177 and 178:
9. the date and location 17 of the
Page 179 and 180:
Attachment EE Commission for the Co
Page 181 and 182:
1. The Commission and the CCMs conc
Page 183 and 184:
1. The interim management objective
Page 185 and 186:
Upon receipt of the information the
Page 187 and 188:
3. For the purpose of this measure,
Page 189 and 190:
185
Page 191 and 192:
187
Page 193 and 194:
189
Page 195 and 196:
191
Page 197 and 198:
193
Page 199 and 200:
195
Page 201 and 202:
197
Page 203 and 204:
199
Page 205 and 206:
201
Page 207 and 208:
203
Page 209 and 210:
205
Page 211 and 212:
207
Page 213 and 214:
209
Page 215 and 216:
211
Page 217 and 218:
collect and share, in a timely mann
Page 219 and 220:
i. assistance in monitoring the fis
Page 221 and 222:
ANNEX I Agreement for the Provision
Page 223 and 224:
Attachment LL Commission for the Co
show all

Commission for the Conservation and ... - Site de la pêche

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?